Early Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-12
review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-12-rtgdir-early-pignataro-2020-03-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2020-03-22
Requested 2020-03-04
Requested by Dhruv Dhody
Authors Huaimo Chen, Zhuangyan, Qin Wu, Daniele Ceccarelli
Draft last updated 2020-03-22
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -12 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Pignataro
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-12-rtgdir-early-pignataro-2020-03-22
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/QUBOYXwA2ujMMMNZ8Is0UB2Wf6Y
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 22)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2020-03-22

Review
review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-12-rtgdir-early-pignataro-2020-03-22

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling
Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:
This is a well written document, which displays iterations that improved its quality. I have no concerns with this document.

I would point out a small set of questions and potential issues for the author's consideration:

5.2.1.  SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLV

Can Start-Time and Duration take any value from 0 to 32-bits-of-ones?

9.  Manageability Consideration

Could these add Default values or ranges (esp. to times, seconds, etc.)?

10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators

For the SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE and SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE, I suggest creating Registries for the Flags:
|   Flags |R|C|A|
What is the future's allocation policy for remaining Flags for example?

Actually reading later Section 10.3 I realize they are specified there. Why are the Flags in a different section, but Opt in this section?
Anyway, a nit.

   IANA is requested to create and maintain a new registry "Opt" under
   SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE (TLV Type: TBD2).  Initial values for the
   registry are given below.

What is the allocation policy for Unassigned?

     Value    Name                              Definition
     -----    ----                              ----------
      0       Reserved
      1       REPEAT-EVERY-DAY                  Section 5.2.2
      2       REPEAT-EVERY-WEEK                 Section 5.2.2
      3       REPEAT-EVERY-MONTH                Section 5.2.2
      4       REPEAT-EVERY-YEAR                 Section 5.2.2
      5       REPEAT-EVERY-REPEAT-TIME-LENGTH   Section 5.2.2
      6-14    Unassigned
      15      Reserved

What is the reason for "Section 5.2.2"? Since this are instructions for IANA, these references are not significant without the document reference.

Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses

There are more than one Contributors -- why singular?

I hope these help,

Carlos Pignataro.